Maglalang - Reducing Stress - Low Traffic Density - Hi ... · SYSTEM USING HI-RAIL TOR FRICTION...

REDUCING STRESS ON A LOW TRAFFIC DENSITY HIGHLY CURVED

SYSTEM USING HI-RAIL TOR FRICTION CONTROL

Loerella Maglalang

Kelsan Technologies Corp.

1140 West 15th Street, North Vancouver, BC V7P 1M9

Phone: 604-982-2523

Fax: 604-984-3419

Email: [email protected]

Paul Fetterman

Kansas City Southern de México Engineering Consultant

Phone: 816-305-6017


Larry Daughtry

Rail Sciences Inc.

411 N. Clarendon Ave., Scottsdale, GA 30079

Phone: 404-294-300

Fax: 404-294-5423


WORD COUNT: 4,053

© AREMA 2009 ®

ABSTRACT

Kansas City Southern de México (KCSM) has experienced high track stress, tie

cutting and rail wear in certain locations of their Tamasopo Division, which has

extreme curvature and significant gradient. This paper reports a collaborative

investigation by KCSM, Kelsan Technologies, and Rail Sciences of Top of Rail

(TOR) friction control using Hirail spray application. Due to the low traffic on this

line (six trains per day), Hirail spray can be practical and cost-effective for TOR

application. A systematic investigation was undertaken using L/V measurements

to 1) validate L/V reductions on this system, and 2) optimize spray application

parameters.

Parameters examined included A) application to low rail only versus low and high

rails, B) application rate, and C) application frequency. Key results included L/V

reduction, retentivity (number of axles for which L/V was reduced compared to

baseline), and net consumption.

Optimized Hirail application conditions were determined as 0.13 gal/mile/rail

applied to the low rail only, daily. L/V reductions of 11% to 31% were recorded

for downhill (empty) trains and 21% to 44% for uphill (loaded) trains. Film

retentivity was approximately 1,200 axles.

© AREMA 2009 ®

KCSM has now instigated Hirail spray application of KELTRACK® as part of their

routine operations, and anticipate resulting benefits in rail wear and track

structure protection.

INTRODUCTION

Kansas City Southern de México (KCSM), Kelsan Technologies Corp. and Rail

Sciences Inc. (RSI) collaboratively conducted a one-year investigation of freight

hi-rail vehicle-mounted application of KELTRACK®, top of rail (TOR) friction

modifier (FM), on the Tamasopo Division. The benefits of managing the

wheel/rail interface using TOR FM have been documented through numerous

freight and transit trials conducted globally. These benefits include lateral force

and rail wear reductions ranging from 20 – 60% (1-6), corrugation growth

reduction by a factor of 6 to 11 times (9-10), approximately 40% reduction in rail

grinding due to reduced rolling contact fatigue (4,8), significant fuel savings (7)

and wheel squeal noise reduction averaging 10 dB (11,12).

While TOR FM via wayside application has been extensively evaluated, the

Tamasopo Division is the first to conduct a systematic optimization and

evaluation of TOR FM via hi-rail application. This study found that significant L/V

reductions were achieved under extremely challenging curve and grade

conditions. The positive outcome of this study indicates that freight hi-rail

vehicles can be a practical and cost-effective mode for FM application. To date,

KCSM has incorporated TOR Hirail application as part of their routine

© AREMA 2009 ®

maintenance on the Tamasopo Division. KCSM is also exploring TOR

implementation on their other divisions.

TAMASOPO DIVISION BACKGROUND

Kansas City Southern de México owns the concession to operate and maintain

2,645 track miles of railroad in Mexico. The “L” Line between San Luis Potosi

(KP 225) in the central part of the country and the Gulf Coast port of Tampico

(KP 678) presents one of the more challenging operating environments on the

railroad. 52 kilometers on the eastern end of this line are characterized by

continuous curves up to 21 degree curves (14 degree metric) and up to 3%

grades. These segments run from KP 300 to 310, KP 430 to 465, and from KP

505 to 515.

The track structure in these segments had been recently upgraded to 136# head

hardened CWR and 9’ hardwood crossties. The upgraded fastening system

utilized fully box-anchored 16” plates with cut spikes and CurvBloc® elements to

prevent rail rollover. In spite of the upgrade, the track was exhibiting stress in the

form of differential plate cutting and rail head deformation.

PROJECT SCOPE

Initial objectives were to devise an optimum Top of Rail Friction Modifier (TOR

FM) application plan to reduce the lateral stress on the track. Prior to full-scale

implementation, a trial would be conducted on a short 12.4 miles (20 km)

© AREMA 2009 ®

segment, KP 445 to KP 465, centering on a 21.8 degree (14.25 metric) curve at

KP 454.2. This is one of the more severe curves on the Tamasopo.

KCSM engaged RSI to install and monitor a Truck Performance Detector (TPD)

on the test curve to monitor L/V. Anticipated side benefits of the TPD included:

• Identification of bad actor cars

• Identification of overloaded cars

• Data to assist in recommending train makeup regarding locomotive

placement and total train length and weight.

Rail Sciences gathered and pre-processed the data, then forwarded it to Kelsan

for analysis and presentation. Paul Fetterman, engineering consultant to KCSM,

coordinated the effort in the field and facilitated communications between the

parties.

TRIAL ZONE CHARACTERISTICS

At the time of this study, the daily traffic consisted of six trains, approximately 200

axles in length, at maximum 5,000 tonnes each with five locomotives pulling at

the front end. Empty traffic was directed downhill while loaded (80% to 90%

loads) traffic was directed uphill. Annual tonnage was approximately 7 to 10

MGT.

Cell phone coverage and sunlight availability dictated, in part, which curve was to

be instrumented. Test curve details, also found in Figure 1, were:

© AREMA 2009 ®

• Location: KP L-454.2

• Curve no. 264

• Left hand 21.8 degree curve (140 15’ degree metric)

• 3% grade

• 1 ½” super elevation

• 10-15 mph train speeds

The selected curve at KP 452.2 was only accessible by hi-rail truck due to its

remote location and required 24 hour security to protect the instrumentation

equipment.

TEST CURVE INSTRUMENTATION

The high and low rail of the test curve were each instrumented with two strain

gage cribs to measure the lateral and vertical forces of each car/axle passing

over the test curve. By using two cribs, backup was provided in the event signals

were lost from one crib. Furthermore, both cribs were averaged to provide the

nominal forces for each axle. This eliminated anomalies due to wheel flats and

truck friction forces.

RSI calibrated the site for accurate measurement of wheel loads and installed a

pre-wired steel bungalow containing the necessary computers and signal

conditioning equipment. The bungalow also contained a cell phone and antenna

to allow communication for data transfer and troubleshooting. RSI also installed

© AREMA 2009 ®

a bank of batteries to power the site, with charging provided by a set of four solar

panels.

The initial data collection plan called for the data to be transmitted by cell phone

to RSI’s office in Atlanta. In addition, solar power was to be used as access to

electricity was limited. Difficulties with the power demands of the TPD, with cost

and reliability of the cell phone coverage, and with battery sizing led to a change

in the plan. RSI provided a satellite hookup to transmit the data and the KCSM

Signal Department provided new batteries that were better suited to the solar

power arrangement. The Signal Department was also able to download the

data in the event communication was interrupted.

TOR FM HIRAIL APPLICATION SELECTION

Initially, the KCSM track charts were reviewed to provide TOR application

recommendations. Three methods are standard to choose from: wayside

application, car-mounted application, or freight hi-rail vehicle-mounted

application. Out of the three application modes, hi-rail application was selected

as the most practical and cost-effective for the Tamasopo Division. Table 1

provides the benefits and disadvantages of each of the application methods. The

characteristics at Tamasopo that make TOR Hirail favorable are:

• Daily train traffic is low.

• The required track coverage can be reasonably traveled by hi-rail vehicles.

© AREMA 2009 ®

TOR FM HIRAIL APPLICATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The TOR FM Hirail application system was assembled and installed by Portec

Rail, Lumietri de México and KCSM in Mexpasa. The major components (Figure

1) of the TOR Hirail application system consist of the following:

• A control box located in the truck passenger compartment. The hi-rail

operator can use the control box to choose to apply to one or both rails,

flush the nozzle lines and monitor tank level and line flow status.

• An electrical box that houses the main electrical component assembly. The

individual left and right pump setting dials for adjusting Hirail TOR

application rates are also located here.

• A chart listing the left and right pump dial settings as calibrated to provide

the proper application rate corresponding to a target hi-rail vehicle speed.

• Friction modifier reservoir

• Nozzle flush fluid reservoir

• Air compressor

• Two metering pumps

• Product circulation lines

• Spray nozzles with enclosures

• Line filters

TOR Hirail application consists of applying an atomized spray of KELTRACK®

Hirail to the top of the rail. The water component in KELTRACK® Hirail rapidly

evaporates, leaving a very thin and uniform film of friction modifier solids on the

© AREMA 2009 ®

railhead. Nozzle alignment can be adjusted to ensure the running band on the

rail is adequate covered with the FM. KELTRACK® Hirail was specifically

developed for this type of application. It has the following characteristics (15-16):

1. Viscosity and flow characteristics suitable for atomizing spray.

2. Minimal settling and agglomeration characteristics.

3. Maximum possible retentivity. This is critical for hi-rail application due to

limited track access.

For the trial at KCSM, the application equipment was mounted on an existing

KCSM one ton Hi-rail truck and calibrated to apply product corresponding to 12.4

mph (20 kph) vehicle speed.

APPLICATION OPTIMIZATION PLAN

The optimization plan was designed to determine the optimized TOR FM

application strategy, rate and frequency. The application zone consisted of 6.2

miles (10 km) either side of and including the test curve to promote wheel

conditioning. Considered application strategies consisted of:

1. application to curves, low rail only

2. application to curves, low rail and high rail

Each strategy applied a series of application rates until maximum L/V reduction

and maximum retentivity (explained below) were reached. Each strategy was

then evaluated by:

• L/V

© AREMA 2009 ®

• Retentivity: The number of axles L/V reduction is sustained after TOR

application. This property is dependent on film strength and is most

impacted by air brake usage.

• TOR FM quantity consumed.

• Required number of hi-rail trips.

Baseline re-evaluations were conducted in between TOR test phases to detect

any changes in baseline conditions and ensure a valid baseline to TOR

comparison. The detailed optimization plan can be found in Table 2.

L/V ANALYSIS

Collected L/V data was organized using the criteria below:

• Locomotives were filtered out to maintain a consistent car data set.

• Axles were numbered in sequence in between TOR applications (e.g. TOR

application, axle 1, axle 2, axle 3…, TOR application, axle 1, axle 2, axle

3…) and so forth.

• Data was categorized into high rail, low rail, westbound (uphill), eastbound

(downhill), again to maintain consistency.

Since the L/V distribution plots have a relatively normal distribution, the Student

T-test was used to test if average L/V differences between baseline and TOR test

phases were statistically significant. A 99% Confidence Level Margin of Error

was also applied in calculating the differences (17).

© AREMA 2009 ®

HI-RAIL APPLICATION SYSTEM MONITORING

The hi-rail operator recorded:

- Climate

- Temperature

- KP chainage traveled

- Time of application

- Vehicle odometer

- Low rail vs. low rail and high rail application

- Vehicle speed

- Dial settings and equivalent application rate

The hi-rail operator was instructed not to apply the friction modifier during rain as

it would be washed off the rails.

Routine maintenance and inspection criteria were established and performed

every 6 months by Lumietri de México. During the trial, the application system

functioned smoothly. The only equipment interruptions that occurred were due to

the hi-rail vehicle wheel condition and not related to the application system.

RESULTS

Out of the TOR test phases from A to D, Phase B provided the best combination

of minimized TOR FM consumption and L/V reduction. L/V reductions ranged

from 11% to 44%. Figures 3 to 6 illustrate the L/V reductions achieved by each

test phase. It was noted that Baseline #4 was much lower than the other

© AREMA 2009 ®

baselines (most seen in Figures 4 to 6), possibly due to residual product from

Phase C not being fully eliminated.

Likewise, TOR Phase B L/V distribution plots (Figures 7 to 10) illustrate a

distribution of lower L/V values compared to baseline. Finally, L/V distribution

plots were generated for locomotives only (Figures 11 to 12). These plots also

show a pronounced L/V distribution shift to the left with TOR application.

Repeatability

TOR Phase B was repeated twice to verify that the observed lateral force

reductions achieved with TOR application are repeatable. As shown in Figures

13 to 14, TOR Phase B clearly demonstrates a consistently significant drop in

L/V compared to baseline.

Retentivity

Low rail and high rail L/V data were plotted against the corresponding axle

sequence number. The axle sequence number where the L/V data appears to

center on the baseline mean indicates that TOR Phase’s film retentivity. TOR

Phase B, B2 and B3 were collectively evaluated to quantify retentivity. While 8

out of the 12 retentivity plots indicated that retentivity was not reached, the

remaining 4 plots demonstrated a retentivity of 1,000 to 1,400 axles. Figures 15

to 17 illustrate three examples where retentivity was reached. To further

establish the retentivity value, TOR Phase C and Phase D were included in the

© AREMA 2009 ®

retentivity analysis. For TOR Phase C, only 1 out of 4 retentivity plots showed

that retentivity was reached (Figure 18). Interestingly, TOR Phase D, which used

twice the amount of TOR Phase B but applied every two days instead of daily,

yielded low retentivity values ranging from 500 to 800 axles. Figure 19 shows

the plot for the 500 axle retentivity. Based on these results, Phase B TOR FM

daily application was recommended for KCSM. To be conservative, retentivity

was estimated at 1,200 axles. Incidentally, this retentivity value matches the

estimated retentivity value from another TOR FM study conducted at BC Rail (1).

CONCLUSION

Despite a challenging test environment, solid results were obtained in this

evaluation of TOR FM Hirail application by KCSM, Kelsan and Rail Sciences.

L/V reductions ranged from 11% to 44%. The optimized application rate specific

to this site was identified as 0.13 gal/mile/low rail (311 ml/km/low rail) on a daily

basis with a retentivity of 1,200 axles. This trial validates TOR Hirail application

can be a suitable choice for friction modifier application.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Rafael Moreno – KCS de M Sub-Director of

Signals, Francisco Vasquez Patiño – KCS de M Division Engineer (South),

J. Alfredo Delgado – KCS de M Roadmaster, José Salvador Bustamante

Villalpando – KCS de M Project Manager (Signals) and Salvador Nuñez – KCS

© AREMA 2009 ®

de M Signal Technician. Without their significant contributions and tremendous

field support, this trial would not have been possible.

REFERENCES

1. D.T. Eadie, N. Hooper, T. Makowsky and B. Vidler, “Top of Rail Friction

Control, Lateral Force and Rail Wear Reduction in a Freight Application”,

International Heavy Haul Specialist Technical Session in Dallas, May 2003.

2. T. Makowsky, D. T. Eadie, and K. Oldknow, “Union Pacific Railroad Wayside

Top of Rail Friction Control: Lateral Force and Rail Wear Reductions in an

Extreme Heavy Haul Operating Environment”, AREMA Conference

Proceedings in Louisville, September 2006.

3. R. Reiff, T. Makowsky, and Marty Gearhart, “Implementation Demonstration

of Wayside Based TOR Friction Control, Union Pacific Railroad - Walong,

CA”, TTCI Technology Digest, TD05-018, July 2005.

4. R. Reiff, “Wayside-Based Top of Rail Friction Control: 95 MGT Update (Union

Pacific Railroad)”, TTCI Technology Digest, TD-07-10, June 2007.

5. M. Roney, P. Sroba, K. Oldknow, and R. Dashko, “Canadian Pacific Railway

100% Effective Friction Management Strategy”, International Heavy Haul

© AREMA 2009 ®

Association Conference Proceedings in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 93-102,

June 2005.

6. D. T. Eadie, L. Maglalang, B. Vidler, D. Lilley, R. Reiff. “Trackside Top of Rail

Friction Control at CN”, International Heavy Haul Association Conference

Proceedings, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 85-92, June 2005.

7. J. Cotter, D. Eadie, D. Elvidge, N. Hooper, J. Roberts, T. Makowsky and Y.

Liu, “Top of Rail Friction Control: Reductions in Fuel and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions”, 8th International Heavy Haul Association Conference

Proceedings in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 327-333, 2005.

8. D. T. Eadie, D. Elvidge, K. Oldknow, R. Stock, P. Pointner, J. Kalousek, P.

Klauser, “The Effects of Top of Rail Friction Modifier on Wear and Rolling

Contact Fatigue: Full-Scale Rail–Wheel Test Rig Evaluation, Analysis and

Modeling,” Wear Vol. 265, pp. 1222-1230, 2008.

9. D. T. Eadie, M. Santoro, K. Oldknow, and Y. Oka, “Field Studies of the Effect

of Friction Modifiers on Short Pitch Corrugation Generation,” 7th International

Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems

(CM2006) in Brisbane, Australia, September 2006.

© AREMA 2009 ®

10. D. T. Eadie, J. Kalousek, K. C. Chiddick, “The Role of High Positive Friction

(HPF) Modifier in the Control of Short Pitch Corrugations and Related

Phenomena”, Wear Vol. 253, pp. 185-192, 2002.

11. D. T. Eadie, M. Santoro and J. Kalousek, “Railway Noise and the Effect of

Top of Rail Liquid Friction Modifiers”, Wear Vol. 258, pp. 1148-1155, 2005.

12. D. T Eadie and M. Santoro, “Top-of-Rail Friction Control for Curve Noise

Mitigation and Corrugation Rate Reduction”, Journal of Sound and Vibration

Vol. 293, pp. 747-757, 2006.

13. D. T. Eadie, K. D. Oldknow, L. Maglalang, T. Makowsky, R. Reiff, P Sroba

and W. Powell, “Implementation of Wayside Top of Rail Friction Control on

North American Heavy Haul Freight Railways”, 7th World Congress on

Railway Research in Montreal, 2006.

14. J. Cotter, D. Eadie, D. Elvidge, J. Bilodeau, S. Michaud, Y. Rioux, G. Sirois,

R. Reiff, “Freight Car-Based Top of Rail Friction Modifier Application

System”, International Heavy Haul Association Conference Proceedings in

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 69-76, June 2005.

15. Y. Suda, T. Iwasa, H. Koomine, T. Fujii, K. Matusmoto, N. Ubukata, T. Nakai,

M. Tanimoto, Y. Kishimoto, “The Basic Study on Friction Control between

© AREMA 2009 ®

Wheel and Rail”, 6th International Conference on Contact Mechanics and

Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems in Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 343-348, June

2003.

16. X. Lu, J. Cotter, D. T. Eadie, “Laboratory Study of the Tribological Properties

of Friction Modifier Thin Films for Friction Control at the Wheel/Rail Interface,”

Wear Vol. 259, pp. 1262-1269, 2005.

17. R.V. Hogg and J. Ledolter, “Applied Statistics for Engineers and Physical

Scientists”, Macmillan Publishing Company in New York, pp. 166-174, 1992.

© AREMA 2009 ®

Benefits Disadvantages Wayside KELTRACK® Trackside Freight (13)

• Application to every train ensures continuous and consistent train coverage.

• Optimizes wheel conditioning • Utilizes equipment similar to

wayside gauge face lubrication, allowing for smooth integration into existing track maintenance practices

• Well suited for high non-captive fleet traffic frequency and large territories

• DC (solar panel option) powered units available for no AC source. However, DC installation sites are limited to sufficient sunlight areas and the solar panels are more prone to theft

• Numerous wayside units can be a very large capital investment

• Numerous wayside units requires more filling and maintenance

Hi-rail KELTRACK® Hirail (1)

• Requires less hardware compared to multiple wayside units

• Allows off-site or off-track maintenance of TOR FM application system

• Optimizes rail conditioning • Well suited for low traffic

frequency

• Limited by logistics i.e. it cannot apply once every train. Each train consumes some amount of KELTRACK®. KELTRACK® application must be sufficient that effectiveness and consumption balance.

• Required track coverage and frequency may be unfeasible for hi-rail.

Freight Car-Mounted KELTRACK® AutoPilot (14)

• TOR equipped car continues providing revenue, typically using only 15-20% carrying capacity

• Optimizes rail conditioning • Multiple FM application modes

enables FM optimization based on train operating conditions

• Typically lower application rates can be used compared to wayside and hi-rail TOR FM application systems

• Maintenance activities do not require track access

• Large FM reservoirs extend product filling intervals in train service

• Well suited for high frequency captive fleet traffic areas

• For higher train speeds and localized weather conditions, nozzle contamination can require enhanced service intervals

Table 1. Comparison of the Three Standard TOR FM Application Systems

© AREMA 2009 ®

Phase Strategy Application Rate Dates Consumed

Baseline 1 None Mar. ‘07 to Nov. ‘07 None

TOR Phase A Curves, LR, Daily 9.5 miles (15.3 km)

0.079 gal/mile/rail (186 ml/km/rail)

Nov. 16’ 07 to Dec. 10 ‘07

0.74 gal/day (2.8 L/day)

Baseline 2 None Dec. 22 ’07 to Dec. 25’ 07 None

TOR Phase B Curves, LR, Daily 9.5 miles (15.3 km)


Dec. 26 ‘07 to Jan. 9 ‘08


Baseline 3 None Jan. 19 ’08 to Jan. 21 ‘08 None

TOR Phase C

Curves, LR and HR Daily 19.0 miles (30.6 km)


Jan. 22 ‘08 to Feb. 5 ‘08


Baseline 4 None Feb. 06 ‘08 to Feb. 09 ‘08 None

TOR Phase D

Curves, LR and HR Every 2 days 19.0 miles (30.6 km)


Feb. 09 ’08 to Feb. 23 ‘08

2.5 gal/every 2 days (9.5 L/every 2 days)

Baseline 5 Dry Feb. 24 ‘08 to Feb. 26 ‘08

None

TOR Phase B2 Curves, LR, Daily 9.5 miles (15.3 km)


Mar. 5 ‘08 to Apr. 11 ‘08


Baseline 6 None Apr. 12 ‘08 to Apr. 14 ‘08 None

TOR Phase B3 Curves, LR, Daily 9.5 miles (15.3 km)


Apr. 15‘08 to Apr. 26 ‘08


Table 2. Detailed TOR FM Application Optimization Plan

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure 1. Trial Zone and Instrumented Test Curve

Figure 2. Overview of TOR Hirail FM Application Equipment

1. FM Reservoir 2. Flush Fluid Reservoir 3. Air Compressor 4. Metering Pump 5. Electrical Box 6. Spray Nozzle Enclosures

12

3

45

6

Metric Curve

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50

Baseline #1 Baseline #2 Baseline #3 Baseline #4*

TOR Phase A 2.8 L/trip/day

LR only

TOR Phase B 4.8 L/trip/day

LR only

TOR Phase C 5.7 L/trip/dayLR and HR

TOR Phase D 9.5 L/trip/2 days

LR and HR

L/V

Baseline TOR

[-7% to +2%] [-24% to -31%] [-16% to -26%] [-2% to +9%]

Figure 3. High Rail Average L/V for Downhill Trains

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50



LR only


LR only



LR and HR

L/V

Baseline TOR

[-9% to -12%] [-11% to -20%] [-4% to -17%] [+28% to +58%]

Figure 4. Low Rail Average L/V for Downhill Trains

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50



LR only


LR only



LR and HR

L/V

Baseline TOR

[-4% to -8%] [-35% to -44%] [-33% to -42%] [+7% to +31%]

Figure 5. High Rail Average L/V for Uphill Trains

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50



LR only


LR only



LR and HR

L/V

Baseline TOR

[-7% to -11%] [-21% to -26%] [-19% to -25%] [+2% to +13%]

Figure 6. Low Rail Average L/V for Uphill Trains

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyL/V Distribution

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s

Baseline #2TOR Phase B

Figure 7. High Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Cars Only

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyL/V Distribution

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s


Figure 8. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Cars Only

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars Only L/V Distribution

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s


Figure 9. High Rail L/V Distribution for Uphill Trains – Cars Only

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars Only

L/V Distribution

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s


Figure 10. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Uphill Trains – Cars Only

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Locomotives OnlyL/V Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s

BaselineTOR Phase B

Figure 11. High Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Locomotives Only

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Locomotives OnlyL/V Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

L/V Ratio

% W

heel

s

BaselineTOR Phase B

Figure 12. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Locomotives Only

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Baseline#1

Baseline#2

Baseline#3

Baseline#5

Baseline#6

TORPhase B

TORPhase B2

TORPhase B3

L/V

Figure 13. Baseline versus TOR Phases B to B3 for Uphill Trains – High Rail

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyBaseline versus TOR Average L/V

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Baseline#1

Baseline#2

Baseline#3

Baseline#5

Baseline#6

TORPhase B

TORPhase B2

TORPhase B3

L/V

Figure 14. Baseline versus TOR Phases B to B3 for Uphill Trains – Low Rail

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyTOR Phase B2 Retentivity = ~1,000 axles

-0.50-0.40-0.30-0.20-0.100.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Number of Axles after TOR Application

Ave

rage

L/V

TOR Baseline 10 per. Mov. Avg. (TOR)

Baseline #6 HR Average L/V: 0.32

Figure 15. TOR Phase B2 Retentivity for High Rail, Uphill Trains

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyTOR Phase B3 Retentivity = ~1,200 axles

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


Ave

rage

L/V

Baseline TOR 10 per. Mov. Avg. (TOR)

Baseline #6 HR Average L/V: 0.32


Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyTOR Phase B3 Retentivity = ~ 1,400 axles

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


Ave

rage

L/V

Baseline TOR Phase B3 10 per. Mov. Avg. (TOR Phase B3)

Baseline #6 LR Average L/V: 0.32

Figure 17. TOR Phase B3 Retentivity for Low Rail, Downhill Trains

© AREMA 2009 ®

Trains to San Luis Potosí (Westbound, Uphill), High Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyTOR Phase C Retentivity = ~1,400 axles

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


Ave

rage

L/V


Baseline #3 NB HR Average L/V: 0.32

Figure 18. TOR Phase C Retentivity for High Rail, Uphill Trains

Trains to Tampico (Eastbound, Downhill), Low Rail, Leading Axle, Cars OnlyTOR Phase D Retentivity = ~ 500 axles

-0.20-0.10

0.000.10

0.200.30

0.400.50

0.600.70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


Ave

rage

L/V


Baseline #3 SB LR Average L/V: 0.28

Figure 19. TOR Phase D Retentivity for Low Rail, Downhill Trains

© AREMA 2009 ®

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of the Three Standard TOR FM Application Systems

Table 2. Detailed TOR FM Application Optimization Plan

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Trial Zone and Instrumented Test Curve

Figure 2. Overview of TOR Hirail FM Application Equipment

Figure 3. High Rail Average L/V for Downhill Trains

Figure 4. Low Rail Average L/V for Downhill Trains

Figure 5. High Rail Average L/V for Uphill Trains

Figure 6. Low Rail Average L/V for Uphill Trains

Figure 7. High Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Cars Only

Figure 8. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Cars Only

Figure 9. High Rail L/V Distribution for Uphill Trains – Cars Only

Figure 10. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Uphill Trains – Cars Only

Figure 11. High Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Locomotives Only

Figure 12. Low Rail L/V Distribution for Downhill Trains – Locomotives Only

Figure 13. Baseline versus TOR Phases B to B3 for Uphill Trains – High Rail

Figure 14. Baseline versus TOR Phases B to B3 for Uphill Trains – Low Rail



Figure 17. TOR Phase B3 Retentivity for Low Rail, Downhill Trains

Figure 18. TOR Phase C Retentivity for High Rail, Uphill Trains

Figure 19. TOR Phase D Retentivity for Low Rail, Downhill Trains

© AREMA 2009 ®

Maglalang - Reducing Stress - Low Traffic Density - Hi ... · SYSTEM USING HI-RAIL TOR FRICTION...

Documents

Transcript of Maglalang - Reducing Stress - Low Traffic Density - Hi ... · SYSTEM USING HI-RAIL TOR FRICTION...